This is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing Republican/ libertarian assault on rational science and constructive learning, as manifested in their malicious strategic Attacks on Science ~ A collection of articles, scientific resources, plus my own essays and indepth critique of various presentations from unidirectional-skeptics ~ Hopefully a resource for the busy, yet discerning, student who's concerned about the health of our Earth

Pages

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Then, There’s Anthony’s Parrot - A dance with hopelessness.﻿

As it turns out I’m not ready for John Bates just yet. Still wrestling with Fyfe 2016, I realize I need to write a summary, sort of an elevator pitch for very busy scientists.

For now I thought I’d share this recent and all too typical “dialogue” with a Republican sort of climate science “skeptic” as an example of what climate science communicators are up against. This comes from a single YouTube comments thread and is intended for the curious student of the rhetorical tactics of denial - here's a case study in stonewalling.

The only thing I'm suggesting is that people need to stop lying about what the scientists are actually say. Soon has a habit of grossly misrepresenting what the actual science is, so it's easy for him to destroy his own straw men in front of his fawning uncritical under-educated audience.

Unidirectional Skepticism equals Denial

is another thing you could say I'm suggesting.﻿

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale writes: citizenschallengeYT, Perhaps, rather than taking the time to list the dozens (maybe hundreds) of problems with the solely political IPCC, which has as its mandate to demonstrate how mankind affects climate, to the exclusion of all others (natural processes), you simply need to read the expose, The Delinquent Teenager, by Donna Framboise.﻿

Laframboise (I'm curious have you actually read her book, or are you going on some else's headlines?) Delinquent Teenager is an excellent example of that malicious science by rhetoric and slander. - it's more projection and fanaticizing than anything constructive you could learn anything useful out of.

Rather than self-certain vague arm waving, void of all healthy skepticism, find something she wrote that you really really believe. Let's give it a sober looking over. Are you up for it? Got any substance behind the bluster???﻿

Dale, a last thought. This "CAGW" you speak of - can you explain it. I know what the words mean, I want to understand what the concept means to you. I'm also curious if you can justify, or at least explain, your apparent contempt for the notion?﻿

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale writes: Although not unexpected, I'm still amazed how most of those pushing the political catastrophic anthropogenic global warming agenda, feel they have to resort to wild and unsupported statements and accusations while claiming that everyone who disagrees with them is lying.

{CC: Notice that Dale ignores that I have written over an dozen papers detailing LaFramboise deception, chapter by chapter offering specific supporting evidence for my claims.

The stuff of serious effort, in that I recorded my thoughtful arguments and evidence. If I am stupid or mislead then why not show me the errors of my ways - by disputing the facts and arguments I presented, instead of deriding me for being a high school graduate. My whole life has been about learning and allowing new and better information to correct or modify assumptions that turned out flawed. }

Once again, my type (my real type) only states/writes climate points which can be supported with actual data and scientific research.You obviously have no idea how the IPCC functions and obviously haven't read Donna's book (I have, by the way - it's part of my library).

As I have no further use for you or anyone who makes up their "own" facts,

{CC: Donna LaFramboise’s adolescent tattle piece, says more about Donna's insecurities and resentments than anything else. It is no guide to how the “IPCC functions”. What the hell can ya do with such bubble?}

The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Since then, the IPCC has remained the most important source for the Convention’s scientific, technical and socio-economic information. The relationship between the UNFCCC and the IPCC has become a model for interaction between science and decision makers. Several attempts have been made to establish a similar assessment process for other environmental issues.

While those may be problematic, a definitely harmless way of killing time for an individual is browsing online sports betting websites which surely minimizes one's ecological footprint.

Back to Dale: I will leave you with this one point which you obviously "again" have missed.

Under the heading, 1. Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment, it states, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding "human-induced climate change" (quotes mine), its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.”

IPCC. IPCC Reports.Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. IPCC, 2001. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=22Perhaps before shooting your mouth off further concerning your great (lack of) knowledge about our ongoing climate change, you should do some research to save making such a fool of yourself.Feel free to have the last word... to somebody…﻿

Lighten up on that hostility. Try sticking to the facts of the matter. Now what is it about that IPCC statement that you find offense, or threatening? And what does paragraph long summation - have to do with a review of Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. IPCC, 2001. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=22

After all climate scientists have been striving (and succeeding!!!) to study, document and understand the pageant of natural climate changes that helped create this world of ours. What I'm trying to explain is that it's a lie to say the IPCC or climate scientists ignore natural climate changes and what drives them.

In fact it's sort of backward to think there is anything un-natural to today's climate change. After all, CO2 is a major regulator of the atmosphere's amount of insulation. In the past volcanoes have ejected massive amounts of CO2 and with sulfur and soot and such. (Only difference is this time it's humans doing it and humans who 'control' it.) Back to those early volcanoes, the other stuff washed out of the atmosphere fairly rapidly, while the Greenhouse Gases lingered and cause global warming.

As for current observations, show me something that indicates a stable healthy biosphere or weather system. You are blind to the significant changes in the character of extreme weather events - but it's still happening.

Remaining blinded by fear and hostility and rage as you are my pal Dale, doesn't make it go away. I can also be rude, but I try not to. After all, the fearful evidence supports my perspective and I can support that with rational facts and pointers to where you can learn about it.

Zoe shows up and here we go: citizenschallengeYT , You're quite a pretentious fool. Why don't you dig a hole in the bottom of the ocean, and save us all from flooding. You'd make a better hero than a thinker.﻿

Interesting how you gotta start with self-created assumptions and idiot name calling. >> If I were really that much of an fool you could easily put me in my place by sticking to the facts. Have you looked at my blog. Notice I take time to stick to facts and offer resources so the interested can do a little learning for themselves. What do you have - name calling,... great what a champ you are Zoe. I'm sure pophead appreciates your support.

Stick to facts and show me where I'm making mistakes.

Perhaps it is you who are the pretentious fool - have you tried a little self-skepticism and introspection?﻿

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zoe writes:Have you started digging that hole? How much corporate sponsorship do you receive for your role in monetizing atmospheric gases? Tell me, greedy shill, which atmospheric gas comes after co2?﻿

Zoe, I sense much hostility. I'm afraid you don't even know what you are lashing out at. Attacking things you make up in your head is no way to figure out the dynamic world that surrounds you. ~ I am not who you imagine. And I'm certainly not your enemy, that's all in your own head. sweet dreams, cc﻿

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zoe writes:Ah, a crank who lacks self-awareness of his role. Everyone's got you figured out, except you yourself.﻿

Zoe writes:You're kidding, right? You just recycle rumors and propaganda.Explain how your oil conspiracy theory works. Do you also believe big oil pays gasoline taxes?Have you read Soon's paper? No, you didn't.Have you read Schmidt's et al. papers? No, you didn't.Does Schmidt et al use strawman arguments? Yes they do.Does Schmidt et al use phony data that Soon doesn't, in order to make Soon look like a fool?(strawman data) Yes they do.Schmidt's paper was intended for imbeciles who don't read science. He may as well have written a skit for SNL.How about you read some science, and not rumors from climate cranks.https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.0385

Zoe - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRenGy0cg5s&t=319sm -The film traces the use of public relations tactics that were originally developed by the tobacco industry to protect their business from research indicating health risks from smoking. The most prominent of these tactics is the cultivation of scientists and others who successfully cast doubt on the scientific results. ~~~

You linked me to "Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: New observational constraints"

Zoe, I see you edited that since my response. For a dialogue you must go beyond insults, make some real statements. Here: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_04/ If you know anything about which you speak, it should be very easy for you to list these supposed straw men of Schmidt. Here start with that link up there. Pride in your intellectual awareness would demand you make the effort to rationally spell out your charges.

If that gets too overwhelming, do as all the other climate science contrarian do (Poppy head included) run back to your hermetically sealed echo chamber, where you can rant unopposed by rationality.

Or perhaps in the future you'll be more judicious in your empty trash talk.﻿

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zoe writes:citizenschallengeYT​​ Overwhelming? You're a cloud cuckoolander and smear artist. You have nothing to teach me. You can stay inside your hermetically sealed bubble and lash out at your betters.﻿

Now my dear Zoe, what is your deal. You got a lotta potty mouth going, but never offer any substance. Either in defense of this fraud machine Willie Soon or specifically countering anything I've said or shared. Nor in support of your insults about Schmidt's paper (you never even mention which paper.).

Climate Science is big and complicated - but not that big or that complicated - Good faith study can teach you a bunch. Doing this dog-chasing-tail routine, to show how much you despise me, is the stuff of know-nothings who remain interesting in nothing.

Are you ever going to come up with some substance or are we just going to keep playing ring around the rosie. I know the Soon machine has pumped out unbelievable amounts of trash talk - but there's even more real science out there, for me to share.

Perhaps you can explain the double stand. Why is Soon consider such an authority even though he's pocketed well over a million from sources dedicated not to understanding science but to denying it and from a close look at his garbage science (check above links) he's obviously a propaganda machine and no serious scientist. Why is that okay in your book?

Zoe writes:citizenschallengeYT Have you read any science? If you did, you would know that the sun and oceans have a 96% correlation with recent warming, while co2 only 44%. It's really a no brainer, which explains why you're still struggling to understand. Soon is closer to the mark than your favorite climate cranks. Come back when you read some science.﻿

As for all your put-downs, I understand how that works. You have no substance, no actual understanding about what you talk, so burying your opponent in insults is your cover.

You have the self-certainty and passion of a Holy Warrior. Your tribe vs. the hordes - and you don't need to hear one word from us because you are filled with self-certainty and don't need to learn anything or think about anything.

You really should look around at the world you take so for granted, soak it in, because times they are a changing and you don't know what you got till it's lost. Some day you may even remember this prophetic exchange. You got bluster, I got substance.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy ~~ Stanford University, ~ World Meteorological Organization (It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873. Established in 1950, WMO became the specialised agency of the United Nations for meteorology (weather and climate), operational hydrology and related geophysical sciences. ) ~ SkepticalScience. ~ Why do you call them "Climate Cranks" ?

Ionization chambers and neutron monitors have directly monitored the intensity of cosmic radiation since the 1930s (1). Prior to this time, no direct measurements exist, and cosmogenic radionuclides, which can be considered as a kind of a “natural neutron monitor,” can be used as a proxy for cosmic radiation (2). In this context the two most commonly used radionuclides are 10Be and 14C. 10Be and 14C are produced in the Earth’s atmosphere by nuclear reactions of cosmic ray particles with atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen (3) (Fig. 1). Thus, the production rates of these nuclides are directly related to the flux of the incoming cosmic ray particles.

_____________________

Going by WUWT headlines is not any way to conduct a 'sciencie' dialogue.﻿

Zoe, thank you for that edit and providing something to work with. https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=215&p=2 That's a little background regarding your Anthony, very informative post that one, thanks for helping me find it. http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/ As for your graphs, Zoe, do you really believe you have the objectivity or knowledge to interpret those graphs? What do you think they tell you? Have you spent any time at that 2nd link I shared. That's the source of those graphs.

Why do think anything in there disputes the reality of how greenhouse gases regulate our atmosphere's insulation ability? You are forgetting the First Order Physical Reality of Earth. It's the atmosphere that protects us from the black of frigid space. CO2 is the major regular for a variety of reasons, but certainly not the only player.

I like referring to CO2 as our Atmosphere's Insulation Regulator.

At 180 Earth has ice ages at 280 Earth has wonderful temperate times, like the one that enabled complex society to evolve. With our fossil fuels burning we have increased that atmospheric regulator up past 400 and climbing.

Of course, the sun's fluctuations impact climate, but the fact is nothing the sun has been doing can explain the increasing temperatures.

It's been interesting, but I think I'm going to have to sign off for the evening.﻿

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zoe writes:It's been fruitless trying to explain things to a child whose knowledge is several meta levels below mine. He just keeps regurgitating the same narratives and the same crappy data (and places that use the crappy data) that have already been debunked. Silly warmists can't do science, but they sure can lie lie lie.﻿

Zoe, well good morning to you too. What's with the hostility? What have I done to you? Don't you realize your incessant need to build yourself up by tearing me down in your imagination, reveals profound insecurity? http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/p/about-this-blog.html If I'm "meta levels below you" (Hey what are a 'meta levels' anyways - are they related to 'meta studies' by any chance ; ). Why don't you help me out. I obvious am very interested in your knowledge and keep asking you to impart some of it.

Also I'm not as stupid as you would like to imagine. I knew enough to figure out where's Anthony's graph came from and to visit the site http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/ and to see that it's part of the fully incorporated body of knowledge. No secrets or surprises there. I do know other people manipulate that data and say some very crazy things about it, but then some people say crazy things about Earth being created 6,000 years ago and they actually believe themselves. Yea kinda insane ain't it, but I digress.

So again what about those graphs convinces you climate scientists are not to be trusted.

"There is no denying there's a strong link between solar activity and climate - both with the short term (eg - the 11 year cycle) and long term (eg - decadal changes in solar activity). In fact, the close correlation between sun and temperature is what tells us the sun can't be causing recent global warming as solar activity has been steady since the 50's. So what do studies into precipitation tell us?

You must understand Zoe that simply waving a graph around, a graph one doesn't even understand, does nothing to erase all the evidence for AGW. No matter how hard one wishes, or how well they guard their minds from conflicting information.

Zoe, making insults is easy, making claims is easy, coming up with the substance to support your claims that gets more challenging. OH, and NO, NAME CALLING DOES NOT OUT WEIGH VALID INFORMATION.

You mighty want to keep to the topic in your response (should you decide to respond.).

Have a good day, cc﻿

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zoe writes:It's been fruitless trying to explain things to a child whose knowledge is several meta levels below mine. He just keeps regurgitating the same narratives and the same crappy data (and places that use the crappy data) that have already been debunked. Silly warmists can't do science, but they sure can lie lie lie.﻿

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zoe writes:Where Anthony's graph came from? His site has an archived image showing how your data is fraudulently constructed. You get it, imbecile? That graph is not proof of sun's warming, but a refutation of climate cranks' methodology. Skepticalscience uses the same crappy data that all cranks use to disqualify the sun. It is strawman data.You deserve all the insults that all fanatical retards deserve. Learn science, you stupid crank.﻿

Zoe you write: "It is strawman data." But can you explain who the straw man is??? Claims are easy, substance is challenging.

Climate Cranks Methodology, do you appreciate you are calling the people who designed and built that (those) satellites cranks. Do you really mean that? If it comes from the US government do you consider it crank stuff? If it comes from the World Meteorological Organization, people who have coordinated global weather studies longer than anyone, do you consider it crank stuff?

But can you explain what "meta levels" are? Can you explain these supposed straw men? Why do you believe Anthony Watts { www.skepticalscience.com/Why-does-Anthony-Watts-drive-an-electric-car.html } you know he decided to hate climate science because they wanted to make his taxes go up. That's pretty impressive. Is that your reasoning also? Politics? I suppose you hate tree huggers and stuff like that. Is that why you hate climate science?﻿

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zoe writes:It's been fruitless trying to explain things to a child whose knowledge is several meta levels below mine. He just keeps regurgitating the same narratives and the same crappy data (and places that use the crappy data) that have already been debunked. Silly warmists can't do science, but they sure can lie lie lie.﻿

Zoe you keep telling me it's all fraudulent data, but you have not given the slightest hint, how it's fraudulent - except that Anthony Watts told you it was fraudulent. You show a graph that apparently mixes TSI with sunspots and think that's how TSI is achieved by combining those two numbers or something like that. Very confusing that's why I'm asking, and being very nice about it,( I was taught manners, though I don't always obey, I do try.). Please clarify what you think the fraud is.

Oh and I happen to know Anthony Watts is a for real fraud (he's been caught red handed many times but as it is with frauds he'll never cop to it), now can you come up with any more authoritative source than a conspiracy theorists?

Or can you explain what convinced you to believe TSI is fraudulent except that you believe universities are bogus, governments are bogus, NASA is bogus, the international community of experts who study weather and climate full time are bogus. Who does that leave to trust. Oil Company Think Tanks?

Please explain, keep in mind this conversation is recorded, so make it convincing.

I sincerely am interesting you understand in what you believe and why.

Please help me understand.

Best Wishes, later, cc﻿

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zoe writes:It's been fruitless trying to explain things to a child whose knowledge is several meta levels below mine. He just keeps regurgitating the same narratives and the same crappy data (and places that use the crappy data) that have already been debunked. Silly warmists can't do science, but they sure can lie lie lie.﻿

But, Zoe, you haven't tried to explain a thing. You've ignored my questions. You've ignored links to a world full of objective scientific sources, each of which you dismiss with a self-certain flick of your regal pinky. Though you can't explain a thing about what you actually think.

These sorts of discussion are supposed to be about exchanging ideas and challenges perhaps even learning a few things - but you never get past the tossing insults parts.

So sad that your insults makes you feel so superior.

As for how attempting to dialogue with you makes me feel, it's like having a stare-down with hopelessness.﻿

Doesn't that make it all so easy for you - everyone you don't like is delusional. While Anthony is a straight shooting genius and arbiter of all that is. Is that how it is? But Zoe, you've made no attempt to respond to any of my questions.

RECOMMENDED WEBSITES

11/29/2016 I started this blog to debate climate science contrarians, I've done my part, they, the intellectual cowards for their part have run off and hide within their hermetically sealed echo chambers, safe to continue broadcasting more stupidity mixed with anger and hostility rather than constructive learning.

Now this horrendous election. Its changed everything and this blog, not sure where it's going, eventually I need to start another one, one less intent on futility reaching out for what ain't there and more focused on presenting a different perspective for its own sake, and to hell with the rest of it, it's too heart breaking.

I see Dec 19th as a key date. If there isn't serious focused engagement of the public in numbers that surprise everyone, well the oligarch will have their way with us.

Americans need to let Trump know from the gitgo, we do not approve of his con job and he better not get too crazy because he's earned zero good faith or honeymoon considerations. We shall see.

{edited 12/11/2014}

I know there are too many typos, what can I say, eyes aren't what they were, I get rushed, and always did have a thing with transposing…{well, I also hated high school "english" classes... bad call that one.}. Doing the best I can with what I got. Embarrassing though it is, it's better than doing nothing. Besides, it's the issues and reasoning that we should be worrying about.

Though I'm in my own little world here, I'm also constantly learning and evolving and do get occasional feedback and when I reread stuff and find errors or omissions or garbage, I fix it. If it's major I'll acknowledge it with an 'edited' note, minor stuff I don't bother.

~ ~ ~

I hardly keep track of Anthony's latest antics (besides, with Sou on the job why bother - can't beat her insights). It's just me over here and I have more important things to do with my precious hours - still now that Anthony's luster has been wearing thin he's put his energy into discovering and honing new fresh faces to carry on the public show of the Republican/Libertarian strategic attack on science.

He seems to have transitioned into a ring-leader, perhaps mentor/coach would be better, producer? At least that's how Mr. Steele and his antics of the past year has gotten me to think about it. So in that regard this blog remains about WUWT's brand of thinking and logic and my struggle to understand the anatomy of the fraud they've perpetrated against mankind. {December 2014}

_____________________________

ok, now some recommended websites:

This blog was started in April 2013 and is written by an actual scientist so it has a refreshingly serious objective air to it, plus he does a good clear job of explaining complex issues.

Tamino, an acknowledged statistical/mathematical expert of the highest order, at Open Mind also does an excellent job of holding Anthony’s feet to the fire with clearly explained facts and math. Check it out:http://tamino.wordpress.com~ ~ ~

And of course, there is the excellent, most up to date internet depository of climate studies and information for the non-expert public.

Then there's RealClimate.org the scientist's commentary site. Run by working climate scientists intended to help the interested public and journalists sort through the complexities of the climatology. They provide "quick response to developing stories and provide the context" that is too often missing from public media's depiction. {But, you better be serious and have some real science education/understanding under your belt if you want to keep up.}

I remember back in da day, good websites/blogs were few and far between. But over the past years that's been changing to the point that it's impossible to keep up with them all. Here's an incomplete, and long overdue addition to my above list: